Beorn is one of my favorite characters from the hobbit. He is a shapeshifting bear man who lives alone and has awesome animal workers. That is why I was sort of upset when in the third hobbit movie he had 2 seconds of screen time. Beorn was crucial to that battle. He killed Bolg, not the gravity defying legolas. I bet they didn't show more Beorn because that would get in the way of the tariel love story. Come on Jackson! Get your prioritys straight. Giant bear man or non existent elf. Does anyone feel that Beorn should have had a bigger role in TBOFA or is this just me?

I agree with you very very much. I didn't like Tauriel's dysfunctional relationship with Kili and the way the fact that he sexually harassed her and she caved to it, was put across as acceptable, even laudable behavior. And I was bitterly disappointed in the fact that Beorn was given much less screen time. One thing I had hoped for, was seeing him in the battle.

I would have love it if they had given Beorn more protagonism. I have to say that I´m not very pleased with Tauriel existence (I don´t see the point on putting her there, why? Just my opinion) and I would have prefer to see in the battle of five armies more scenes of Beorn, who is not really shown with the importance he have. I always liked this character, by the way. I find it quite of interesting.

P.S: Sorry if I do something wrong, I´m new here and this is the first time I reply a post

He was supposed to kill Bolg and his bodyguards like in the book, but I knew Legolas was going to do that back when they introduced the forced and unnecessary rivalry between him and Bolg that didn't make any sense.

I believe that there was (I also haven't got around to watching it yet).

<-- Celebrating Science in the TVM!

Life is short; break the rules, forgive quickly; kiss slowly; love truly; laugh uncontrollably; and never regret anything that made you smile. Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things you didn't do than by the ones you did. So throw off the bowlines, sail away from the safe harbour. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.

Grab a chance and you won't be sorry for the might-have-beens. - Arthur Ransome

Just because I have the vocabulary of a well-educated sailor doesn't mean I'm not a lady.

I think the fact Tolkien "fanatics" have not felt it necessary to view the extended film is commentary enough. The Hobbit trilogy, theatre or extended DVD, are fatally flawed, succumbing to the worst criticism: they're tedious.

Yes, he did need a bigger role. Why? Because that's the story. Beorn was the one who ended up turning the battle around, saving Thorin from being mangled on the battlefield and killing the chieftain of the orc armies and his personal guard. I guess since PJ was so intent on making Legolas's role in the film more than it should have been, Beorn's major role in the battle was the first thing he thought to push out of the way.

AlatarVinyamar wrote:Was there more Beorn in the extended cut? I haven't got round to it yet.

Yeah, there's about an extra 5 seconds of him killing orcs on the battlefield, and then another two second shot of him at Thorin's funeral. So not nearly enough.

Denethor wrote:Either cut Beorn altogether (and he is perfectly OK to cut), or do him properly. Jackson did neither.

Beorn is still necessary, at least after the company escapes from the goblins. Bilbo and the Dwarves are completely out of food and supplies, so if Beorn was eliminated then at least one character would have needed to be introduced in his place--a Woodman or someone else dwelling in the Anduin Vales.

Denethor wrote:Either cut Beorn altogether (and he is perfectly OK to cut), or do him properly. Jackson did neither.

Beorn is still necessary, at least after the company escapes from the goblins. Bilbo and the Dwarves are completely out of food and supplies, so if Beorn was eliminated then at least one character would have needed to be introduced in his place--a Woodman or someone else dwelling in the Anduin Vales.

The Rankin-Bass Hobbit (1977) cuts him. Basically, the key is not dwelling on food issues at all.

Yes, and that created a great big plot hole in the animated film (which also mostly cut the Wood-elf feast in the Forest--though a reference to the clearing remains--and completely eliminated the subplot concerning the Arkenstone). I've often wished that Rankin/Bass could have added another half-hour to their adaptation of The Hobbit so that, even at the break-neck pace of the special, some of those deleted elements could have been restored.

Yes, and that created a great big plot hole in the animated film (which also mostly cut the Wood-elf feast in the Forest--though a reference to the clearing remains--and completely eliminated the subplot concerning the Arkenstone). I've often wished that Rankin/Bass could have added another half-hour to their adaptation of The Hobbit so that, even at the break-neck pace of the special, some of those deleted elements could have been restored.

It's only a plot hole if you draw attention to it, and frankly Rankin-Bass works just fine.

As it is, if it really bothers you, one could have the eagles drop the company off, then later have them talking about Mirkwood over a fire, with some meat on a spit or something, implying that they have been hunting. No need for Beorn at all.

Denethor wrote:It's only a plot hole if you draw attention to it, and frankly Rankin-Bass works just fine.

As it is, if it really bothers you, one could have the eagles drop the company off, then later have them talking about Mirkwood over a fire, with some meat on a spit or something, implying that they have been hunting. No need for Beorn at all.

Hunting with...what? The company started out poorly armed, and by the time they escaped from the goblins they had nothing more than the three elven blades and perhaps a few knives. You could argue that the Eagles could have left them with a deer carcass or two that the Dwarves could have smoked, but water would still be a problem in the forest.

Denethor wrote:It's only a plot hole if you draw attention to it, and frankly Rankin-Bass works just fine.

As it is, if it really bothers you, one could have the eagles drop the company off, then later have them talking about Mirkwood over a fire, with some meat on a spit or something, implying that they have been hunting. No need for Beorn at all.

Hunting with...what? The company started out poorly armed, and by the time they escaped from the goblins they had nothing more than the three elven blades and perhaps a few knives. You could argue that the Eagles could have left them with a deer carcass or two that the Dwarves could have smoked, but water would still be a problem in the forest.

In movie-verse, have Kili keep his bow. Add a non-enchanted stream for water. But, really, no-one in the audience is going to care.

Granted, we are discussing The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug; however, I'm not the one who first brought up the animated tv special. But that being the case, we still have Beorn in the story and don't need to worry about Kili and his bow; the company is re-armed by Beorn. And I'm willing to grant the company coming across a stream of good water before they actually enter Mirkwood, but not within the forest. The Enchanted Stream is meant to be the only water available on the Elf-path and I am not willing to undermine that. Note that without Beorn, the company does not know to use the Elf-path instead of the Old Forest Road that is impassable at the eastern end (though Peter Jackson's script could have just given Gandalf that knowledge, perhaps through Radagast).

What it comes down to is that if you are going to adapt the book of The Hobbit as three feature-length movies then there is little excuse for leaving out any of the major plot-points or supporting characters.

In the Rankin/Bass version, they created the plot-holes; it's not my responsibility to fix them. At the same time, the Enchanted Stream is another element that doesn't make it into the animated film to my recollection.